Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it operates on a 'live' document and requires a valid token, but does not elaborate on side effects, reversibility, or failure behavior. It does not contradict annotations and adds some context, but could disclose more about mutation consequences.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences that front-load the action and include a prerequisite and requirement. No redundant phrasing, every sentence contributes.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a relatively simple add operation with a nested object and no output schema, the description covers the essential use case: purpose, prerequisites, and access requirements. It could mention how to obtain the token or what happens with invalid IDs, but the schema and context (live document) make it sufficiently complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 80% (only the nested 'connection' object lacks an explicit description). The description adds the meaning 'arrow/edge' and references source/target IDs, but the schema already explains most parameters. The added value is marginal, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's action: 'Adds a connection (arrow/edge) between two nodes in a live Trident document.' This uses a specific verb (adds) and resource (connection) and distinguishes it from siblings like add_node and add_annotation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use get_document_summary to get valid source and target node IDs before calling this.' It also notes the requirement for a valid editor access token. While it doesn't explicitly discuss alternatives or when not to use the tool, the guidance is actionable and contextually grounded.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.